Casey Anthony; The "News" Distraction

With the countless important events currently taking place throughout the world, and as we are in a shift towards a time of unparalleled disaster; economically, morally, and socially, the American people can’t get one thing off of our minds… Casey Anthony. While we in the U.S., or better said “our” representatives in government continue to take part in wars with what will be their sixth so-called “kinetic military action,” the American people are in a daze over the case of what may be a child murder carried out by the victims mother. In terms of publicity and media attention, the Casey Anthony trial can only be compared to O.J. Simpson’s murder trial during the 90s. The Casey Anthony trial, as the O.J. trial, has garnered the attention of both local and national news stations throughout the country and dominates every mainstream media news source. There is nowhere we can turn to get away from the “Case against Casey Anthony,” as it has been so cunningly titled for us by mainstream media sources. But with all the attention focused on one overexposed court case, the American people are diverted like a baby with a mobile over their crib, and not focused on issues that are are supremely more important.

While most normal people understand that any crime is a serious issue, especially one dealing with the murder of a child, it is hard for some to understand why so much publicity is given to this one case that affects a relatively small amount of people. As a society, while there are exceptions, there is relatively no need to further enforce the fact that killing a child is wrong, and this is demonstrated by the protestors who stood outside the Anthony home after the death of Caylee, and the large uproar that has arisen from the publication of the trial. Also, it is clear to me that while many Americans still understand the gravity of a murder, many have become desensitized to watching news stories about the murdering of innocent children. So why is the Casey Anthony case such a focal point for media outlets around the United States? This is a very important question that remains unasked by average news watchers and purposefully untouched by many major news sources.

When we sit down to watch the 6 o’clock news, whether it be local or national, we fail to understand where exactly the information we’re receiving comes from. For instance, when we sit down to watch the Casey Anthony trial many people think we are simply being presented a case because we need to be aware of the issue or because the people are requesting it. But, we are mistaken if we think everything on the news has been thoroughly investigated by a reporter and thought to be of dire consequences, and therefore in generosity presented to the public. Instead, many times, if not almost every time the news stories we read and watch are handed downed from higher ranking editors and other more prominent people within News Corporations, the Casey Anthony case not excluded. It is not very difficult to understand this concept, it is not mere coincidence that we can turn to several different news channels all owned by different corporations and see the same exact news stories, presented in the same exact context, with the same explanation, using the same sources, and coming from both “liberal” and “conservative” news stations. If we are completely honest with ourselves, and study mainstream news carefully, we can see that there are maybe three or four news stories that completely dominate our news stations for days and weeks while other more important stories go ignored. If we want to be intellectually honest people, we need to ask ourselves why certain subjects are never touched while other much less important subjects go overexposed. How many mothers have we heard in the past few years that have killed their children, yet their trials were never publicized as much as this case. The question is why?

The sad but most accurate reasoning behind what we see from most of our mainstream news sources is that clearly our news is handed to us with a very specific agenda and intended effect in mind. The truth about the publicity of the Casey Anthony case is that there really isn't anything special that has brought this specific case to the spotlight, meaning that we have seen similar cases before. Instead, what is special or peculiar is that the case arose at such a time that allowed it be manipulated and used to distract at the opportune time. Although we are told that sensationalism directs these types of issues in our news, it is not the main reason we see what we do from news sources. The truth is that our news, both local and national, is used as both a tool for forming mental processes and a method to distract from certain prominent and damning issues. It is coincidence that this case is taking place during a very controversial time in politics and election campaign time, but what is not a coincidence is the extreme publicity that the case has taken, especially over more important issues. Sadly, this has become commonplace with our mainstream media.

A very well established, but little stated fact, is that only six companies control almost all the news sources within the United States and actually throughout the world today. These six companies are News Corporation, Time Warner, Viacom, CBS, General Electric, and Walt Disney, and while we do get reporters that do independent work and investigate their own topics from these mainstream news sources, the majority of what we see is handed down from a top down approach rather than developing from the bottom up. In other words, higher raking officials in the companies see what is happening in the world and hand down what they want their employees to write about. So, rather than the most important news being discussed on news channels and many newspapers, only the handpicked news is presented and reaches the masses. Stop and ask yourself if you really think that these six mega corporations only care for people and want us to be aware of the all the issues? If this was the case, why don’t we here as consistently about the horrid actions NATO has taken to bomb Libya and kill innocent civilians? Why haven’t we heard the fact that people like John Mccain and others want the U.S. to send weapons and funding to Libyan rebels who have Al-Qaeda heavily involved in their actions?

As I previously mentioned, the United States is involved in at least six wars, which they call “kinetic military actions,” to make them seem less important. While we can hear some details here and there about these wars, we will never hear about them to the extent of something like the Casey Anthony or O.J. Simpson trials that have taken place. The agenda here is very clear for anyone who is willing to accept the implications of it; the mainstream media many times distracts you from more important issues to entertain you with smaller issues that aren’t relevant in order to cover up and protect certain agendas that may disgust average viewers. Now don’t get me wrong about the Casey Anthony trial, the murder of a child is absolutely important. But why is one child more important in the United States than a child killed by a bomb in Libya? Why can we turn on the news at any time of day and hear about the Casey Anthony trial, but we don’t hear about the children and civilians that are murdered as a result of NATO attacking Libya? These issues are tremendously more important and affect more people than one court case involving one mother and one deceased child, and while the case should not be dismissed, the emphasis in the news should be put on the fact that people are being killed daily in “kinetic military actions,” across the globe as we speak.

In the mainstream news we can hear about Lady Gaga, Lindsay Lohan, Justin Bieber, endless sports, and the Casey Anthony case, but we don’t hear the fact that U.S. President, Barack H. Obama vowed to disavow the “War Powers Act,” which was created as a way for the U.S. to take part in “military actions,” aka war without calling it one by name, as long as you wouldn’t last more than 60 days in the conflict. Of course, this act in and of itself violates Article 1, section 8 which states that “Congress shall have the power to… declare war,” but President Obama has stated that infringing the Constitution by not informing Congress and going to war without a declaration by Congress was not enough, he has to stay at war in Libya for longer than the 60 day period. But, it was no better with Republicans, we didn't hear anything in the news when George W. Bush was throwing the Constitution in the garbage and violating the 4th amendment left and right. We don’t hear about these illegal actions, which are enough to impeach a president; instead we’re bombarded with the irrelevant news of Schwarzenegger’s and Anthony Weiner’s marital unfaithfulness, hours and hours of unimportant local, national, and worldwide sports, and of course the crucial Casey Anthony case. We need to understand that the mainstream media’s goal is not to inform you on the facts or details or to give you the important news; it is there to gain power, present a message, and to give you a paradigm. These news stations are here to give the message that the kingpin CEOs and establishment want you to know and to instill the mindset they would have you use when judging the world. The Casey Anthony case is not as important as the current U.S. wars that are killing innocent children and civilians in numerous countries throughout the world, and we will never stop being in a constant state of war where we send loved ones to die and to kill others around the world if we don’t snap out of self-centeredness that is prevalent in America and remove our apathy towards the rest of the world.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.8

9/11: The labeling of a Conspiracy Theory. An Attempt to Defame

There is no more dramatic, shocking, or important event to happen during my life in the United States than the tragedy of September 11th. The changes that have come as a result have changed the world forever and affect everyone in some way. And although we can all agree that September 11th was a terrible day, not all of us are sincere in coming to the realization that the official explanations offered as to the collapse of the twin towers and building seven are inadequate. The official explanation of why the buildings collapsed, given by the 9/11 Commission and affirmed by other governmental committees, has become the most widely accepted explanation. But, the physical inconsistencies surrounding the events have led many scientists, architects, and engineers to question the official governmental explanation of the events and demand a new investigation. In addition to the groups of professionals and experts who question the official explanation, the many benefactors that arose out of this tragedy are seen by those who do not accept the official explanation as possible accessories to the crimes of that day. Sadly, when discussing this subject, whether on mainstream news channels or in private conversations with friends, it is almost impossible to question the official story without your views being labeled a “Conspiracy Theory.” And although mainstream thinkers, media personalities, politicians, and others would unreasonably call these formulations “Nothing but a conspiracy theory,” while not dealing with the facts, mainstream explanations and governmental committees have never given acceptable answers to the issues brought up, and fail to accept as valid the many questions still asked and unanswered by the hundreds of victims’ families and the many citizens of this country.

When looking at a criminal trial, one of the most important aspects of the investigation is seeing who benefited from the possible crime, and as a result could have possibly been involved in the crime. Whether or not someone is personal affected by this part of the investigation, it is one of the most important parts and it is imperative that it takes place. In fact, the first people to be questioned in an official crime investigation are those closest to the situation. Searching out the truth is far too important to bypass this step, and too many important decisions will be made based on what we choose to investigate or leave untouched. While many erroneously assume that these steps have ever been taken with 9/11, others know that they haven’t and demand that these steps be taken; regardless of how many years after the attacks it has been. But, the few in America and in the world that demand for these steps to be taken as part of an official investigation are often dismissed as crazy “Conspiracy Theorists,” and their views are lumped in with holocaust deniers, flat Earthers, and the Elvis is still alive group of theorizers.

In America today people use the term “conspiracy theory” as a condescending and obscure way to call those who hold opposing views either dumb, crazy, or both. The term “conspiracy theory” is used by many common people, personalities in mainstream television, and others to describe the most greatly disparaged explanations of events, in order to label an explanation as a crazy concept that is not based in reality. Many people use the term to dismiss ideas, philosophies, and even proven or admitted facts based on the idea that conspiracies or alternative view points are merely “theories.” However, those who take part in these actions do not understanding that any and all responses could be labeled as “conspiracy theories.” Rather than taking the evidence at hand and testing it against all the explanations given, many Americans, out of ignorance, accept anything and everything they’re told by any authoritative figure. Most Americans fail to realize that an explanation is not true because of who affirms or denies it, although that does give an argument more strength. But, an argument is true because it explains what happened with the most reasonable evidence, and it makes use of the unaltered facts.

The majority of Americans, due to different educational and societal paradigms, when confronted with an alternative theory or a different explanation of events that may implicate a person or a group they hold in high esteem, become offended and quickly label the idea a “conspiracy theory.” Sadly, they will denounce facts and dismiss evidence because an explanation has been labeled a kook “conspiracy theory.” At times, they will even rain in insults and defamatory remarks instead of reasonably debating the facts presented. This method of argumentation is known in schools of logic as an ad-hominem attack. An ad-hominem attack is an error in logic where a debater points out character flaws, defames the person directly, or uses insults to make the person seem less credible in order divert the attention from the details of the argument. At different times ad-hominem arguments may be used because different reasons; these include fear, anger, or purposely to distract from the argument. This tactic can be seen being used by many of the United State’s mainstream media personalities, who revel in using this to vilify those they disagree with.

In the case of 9/11, the labeling of alternative explanations as a “conspiracy theory,” has caused a widespread acceptance of the inadequate explanation promoted by the U.S. government of the cause of the collapse of World Trade center buildings one, two, and seven. Recently, I watched a debate between Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas, the creators of the internet sensation Loose Change, and a pair who represented the widely known magazine Popular Mechanics, in a seemingly “David vs. Goliath,” debate. For my benefit and the representatives from Popular Mechanics shame, I could not sum up my case for the negative labeling of a conspiracy theory any clearer. From my personal research, I know how both sides began their investigation into September 11th, and it is very clear that the makers of Loose Change were forced by the facts and the inadequacy of the government’s explanation to point out errors in the official story. On the other hand, from my research, I could see that the two men from Popular Mechanics had preconceived ideas that these film makers were wrong before critically examining their claims and made a decision not to find the facts, but to prove that the two young men wrong. It is important to note that the makers of Loose Change did not begin their investigation with their final documentary production about 9/11; they started out making a Titanic like film about a fictional story taking place in a historical event. Through their research of the timelines, facts, eye witness accounts, and by studying physical laws, they continuously came across anomalies and impossibilities which obligated them raise questions concerning the government’s explanation. However, it is very evident that the team from Popular Mechanics specifically started their research in order to “debunk” what they purposely label “9/11 Conspiracy Theories.” Throughout the entire debate, the two from Popular Mechanics threw out phrases like “this is not a movie,” and things like “the conspiracy theorists always say…,” in an attempt to discredit their opponent’s arguments. In addition to this barrage of ad-hominem attacks, at one point in the debate the two men from Popular Mechanics took an irrelevant and incoherent shot at people who believe in a Biblical account of Creation, implying that they don’t understand the facts and evidence when looking at an explanation. Basically, the two men from Popular Mechanics were saying that their argument was a “God of the gaps,” argument, accusing them of finding “gaps” in the official explanation and being unreasonable. Anyone with even an elementary understanding of logic should be repulsed when seeing the onslaught of fallacies used in an attempt to discredit the two creators of Loose Change; and anyone who has the facts and evidence on their side when debating any topic has no need to call their opponent’s views a “conspiracy theory.” The Popular Mechanics team continuously used straw-man arguments, choosing a weak part of the argument and altering it, to make their opposition look dimwitted in their stance. They constantly attacked and belittled their opposition to make their opponents look ludicrous while they tried to make themselves look intelligent and credible. Someone who understands debating will see that these key words and phrases are tactics used to win an argument without having to present a well founded and coherent argument.

In the specific case of 9/11, many times those debating will never get into the specific details and facts about the argument because of different factors. Many times, the person arguing for the official explanation will use the same tactics the two men from Popular Mechanics used. Many times the individual using these fallacies doesn’t even realize that they are not contradicting the facts. As a result, the debate turns into an argument about the credibility of the people rather than about the explanation of the facts. The lack of understanding by those using these errors in logic leads to endless debating where one side is not willing to contradict the facts and the other side is not able to present their facts without being insulted, demeaned, and/or criticized.

The easiest and laziest ways to avoid facts and gain public support for against your opponents is to call them crazy, call them liars, or call their argument a “conspiracy theory.” If we truly believe the stance we’re arguing for, we have no need to call our detractors names. Yet, we see people in the mainstream media such as; Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, and other so-called “conservative” talk radio hosts used these tactics make their opponents look crazy. Not just radio talk show hosts use these tactics, but our own “conservative” president after 9/11 used a similar approach. President George W. Bush stated “We must never tolerate outrages conspiracy theories.” Anytime we see these tactics being used we must question the person using the tactics are saying. But, not only did Bush take this approach, but our current president Barack H. Obama stated “I’m aware that there are some who would question, or even justify the events of 9/11.” Here Obama is clearly telling us to not tolerate theories that may contradict what the government might assert as fact. So, we have our last two presidents, one a democrat and one a republican, telling us to never question what they say, and to never tolerate people who question the events of 9/11. We should never “tolerate” someone calling alternative theories “conspiracy theories” instead of directly contradicting the facts and responding to the real questions.